2023-03-29 18:09:36 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
HISTORY OF THE SEARCH FOR SYSTEM
was against him. The guṇas, like the dosas, may help us to distinguish
good poetry from bad poetry, but they will never help us to conceive
poetry. And it was to this latter end that all Indian criticism was directed.
35
Moreover (and this is a point not to be taken lightly) the guna theory
as a poetic is simply not adequate to the poetry of the Indian classical
period. An attempt to define two (Daṇḍin) or three (Vāmana) or even
five styles seems destined from the start to fall short, to mistake the
fundamental character of the highly sophisticated and intellectual ex-
pressivism of the classical poem. The obvious quality of this latter is to be
found in its complex expressionistic structures-not in the impressions
it creates on the ear.
If Vamana posed for the first time the problem of the internal organiza-
tion of the poetic Geisteswelt, it was not his solution which proved sig-
nificant for the tradition. Moreover, the complexity and variety of figur-
ation (in which the poetic differentia was felt to reside) is better seen in
Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin, where figures were defined according to every
conceivable expressive peculiarity, not just that of comparison. It
remained for Rudrața" to attempt the first synthesis, maintaining the
structural variety of Dandin, yet proposing an explicit system of classifica-
tion which provided for more variables than did the monotonic one of
Vāmana. Rudrața introduces a four-fold classification of the figures
intended to comprehend all the non-grammatical types, or arthālamkāra.
name),
(d) Rudrata: The First Systematist
(1) Simile
Rudraţa accepts the fundamental character of simile, as do all other
Indian writers. Simile is, indeed, the figure par excellence. Reasons for
its priority are not hard to find: little or no poetry is possible without
extensive use of simile. This is particularly true of the stanzaic poetry of
the Indian classical period, where the poetic work was a sequence of static,
reposeful images. But theoretically, too, simile is the cornerstone of
the figurative world. Indian writers considered the poetic višeşana to be a
certain manner of usage-of structures of thought and conception
(which are fundamental to all reasoned discourse) but usage which,
though entirely successful and meaningful, is not understandable in
terms of literal conventions. The standard form of reasoned discourse is
the proposition: A is B. The most obvious poetic variation on the
"Kävyälamkāra, chaps. 7-10 (not to be confused with Bhämaha's work of the same
was against him. The guṇas, like the dosas, may help us to distinguish
good poetry from bad poetry, but they will never help us to conceive
poetry. And it was to this latter end that all Indian criticism was directed.
35
Moreover (and this is a point not to be taken lightly) the guna theory
as a poetic is simply not adequate to the poetry of the Indian classical
period. An attempt to define two (Daṇḍin) or three (Vāmana) or even
five styles seems destined from the start to fall short, to mistake the
fundamental character of the highly sophisticated and intellectual ex-
pressivism of the classical poem. The obvious quality of this latter is to be
found in its complex expressionistic structures-not in the impressions
it creates on the ear.
If Vamana posed for the first time the problem of the internal organiza-
tion of the poetic Geisteswelt, it was not his solution which proved sig-
nificant for the tradition. Moreover, the complexity and variety of figur-
ation (in which the poetic differentia was felt to reside) is better seen in
Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin, where figures were defined according to every
conceivable expressive peculiarity, not just that of comparison. It
remained for Rudrața" to attempt the first synthesis, maintaining the
structural variety of Dandin, yet proposing an explicit system of classifica-
tion which provided for more variables than did the monotonic one of
Vāmana. Rudrața introduces a four-fold classification of the figures
intended to comprehend all the non-grammatical types, or arthālamkāra.
name),
(d) Rudrata: The First Systematist
(1) Simile
Rudraţa accepts the fundamental character of simile, as do all other
Indian writers. Simile is, indeed, the figure par excellence. Reasons for
its priority are not hard to find: little or no poetry is possible without
extensive use of simile. This is particularly true of the stanzaic poetry of
the Indian classical period, where the poetic work was a sequence of static,
reposeful images. But theoretically, too, simile is the cornerstone of
the figurative world. Indian writers considered the poetic višeşana to be a
certain manner of usage-of structures of thought and conception
(which are fundamental to all reasoned discourse) but usage which,
though entirely successful and meaningful, is not understandable in
terms of literal conventions. The standard form of reasoned discourse is
the proposition: A is B. The most obvious poetic variation on the
"Kävyälamkāra, chaps. 7-10 (not to be confused with Bhämaha's work of the same